Certain migraines are labeled as refractory, but the entity lacks a well-accepted operational definition. This article summarizes the results of a survey sent to American Headache Society members to evaluate interest in a definition for RM and what were considered necessary criteria. Review of the literature, collaborative discussions and results of the survey contributed to the proposed definition for RM. We also comment on our considerations in formulating the criteria and any issues in making the criteria operational. For the proposed definition for RM and refractory chronic migraine, patients must meet the International Classification of Headache Disorders, Second Edition criteria for migraine or chronic migraine, respectively. Headaches need to cause significant interference with function or quality of life despite modification of triggers, lifestyle factors, and adequate trials of acute and preventive medicines with established efficacy. The definition requires that patients fail adequate trials of preventive medicines, alone or in combination, from at least 2 of 4 drug classes including: beta-blockers, anticonvulsants, tricyclics, and calcium channel blockers. Patients must also fail adequate trials of abortive medicines, including both a triptan and dihydroergotamine (DHE) intranasal or injectable formulation and either nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or combination analgesic, unless contraindicated. An adequate trial is defined as a period of time during which an appropriate dose of medication is administered, typically at least 2 months at optimal or maximum-tolerated dose, unless terminated early due to adverse effects. The definition also employs modifiers for the presence or absence of medication overuse, and with or without significant disability.

Objectives: To evaluate potential for and incidence of aberrant drug-related behaviors among patients with chronic, moderate-to-severe pain in a primary care setting and to determine investigator compliance with universal precautions (UP) approach to pain management.Design: Open label, multicenter.Setting: Primary care centers (N = 281) across the United States.Patients: Opioid naïve and opioid experienced with chronic, moderate-to-severe pain (N = 1,487).Interventions: Morphine sulfate extended-release capsules for ≤4 months. Tools comprising UP approach were treatment agreement, card for obtaining/tracking prescriptions, Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain®-Revised questionnaire, pill counts, pain-patient follow-up tool, investigator assessment/plan, and urine drug screens (UDSs).Outcome measures: Proportion of patients at low, moderate, and high risk of opioid misuse/abuse based on prespecified criteria and investigator judgment, proportion of patients with aberrant drug-related behaviors, and proportion of investigators compliant with UP approach.Results: Patients were primarily white (87 percent), women (57 percent); mean age, 53 years (range, 21-92 years). At baseline, 47 percent were considered low risk for opioid misuse/abuse, 52 percent moderate, and 1 percent high. UDSs were positive for illicit/nonprescribed drugs in a proportion of patients throughout the study. Overall, 64 percent of investigators were compliant with major components of UP approach in ≥75 percent of their patients. However, there was a tendency for investigators to assign risk levels for opioid misuse/abuse as lower than protocol specified.Conclusions: Most patients in these primary care study centers were categorized as at least moderate risk for opioid misuse/abuse at baseline. Most primary care investigators complied with the UP approach to pain management and risk assessment. The completion of the brief training and clinical use of the tools during the study led to retained behavior change, but there was a tendency for investigators to assign lower risk levels than those that were protocol-specified, suggesting a need for better understanding of factors influencing investigator decisions.